隔离但平等（英语：Separate but equal），是种族隔离政策的一种表现形式，它试图通过为不同种族提供表面平等的设施或待遇，从而使实施空间隔离的做法合法化。

美国南北战争之后，奴隶制被废除。“隔离但平等”于是成为南部各州的一种普遍现象。各州以“非裔美国人”和“欧裔美国人”之名将黑人和白人从空间上分割开来，避免产生接触。

1896年，美国最高法院在普莱西诉弗格森案中裁决这种做法符合美国宪法，于是这种行为正式取得合法地位。裁决在今日看来被认为是最高法院最差的判决之一。

随着美国黑人民权运动的不断推进，“隔离但平等”原则受到了越来越多的挑战。1954年，美国最高法院在布朗诉托皮卡教育委员会案（Brown v. Board of Education）中，以9：0一致裁决：由于“黑白隔离政策表示黑人低劣”，所以原告和提出诉讼而处境与此相似的其他人，由于受所述种族隔离之害，已被剥夺了美国宪法第十四修正案与平等保护条款所保障的权利。此案的裁决突破了普莱西案对“隔离但平等”原则的认可，取消了在教育领域的种族隔离。此后最高法院又通过一系列判决，实质上否认了“隔离但平等”原则的合法性。

Separate but equal was a legal doctrine in United States constitutional law according to which racial segregation did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, adopted in 1868, which guaranteed equal protection under the law to all citizens. Under the doctrine, as long as the facilities provided to each race were equal, state and local governments could require that services, facilities, public accommodations, housing, medical care, education, employment, and transportation be segregated by race, which was already the case throughout the former Confederacy. The phrase was derived from a Louisiana law of 1890, although the law actually used the phrase "equal but separate."